Christian bakers fined for refused to receive order from gay couple

now that the General Election in the UK has begun to recede into the past, I feel I can start posting again. UK readers may have heard of the case of the Belfast based bakery firm that was fined £500 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple with the motto "Support Gay Marriage". and theSesame Street characters Bert and Elmo on it. The firm argued unsuccessfully that it was an issue of "religious freedom" in that they had deeply felt moral and religous views against such an "abomination".

Speaking as a practising Roman Catholic I can certainly see where the firm is coming from- sometimes the state SHOULD recognize and respect individual's deeply felt religious and moral views. The trouble is that "freedom for the pike can mean death for the minnow" as one philosopher observed- "religious freedom" is NOT and was NEVER meant to be an open ended right- despite what some pundits and politicians claim- any more so than freedom of speech is meant to justify inciting mob violence.

As God/Allah/Jehovah seems to have better things to do with His/Her/Its time than govern humanity directly, we can only claim partial knowledge of what He/She/Its desires are.

Also different things are or were considered "abominations" in the eyes of God at different times or by differing faiths. For example the consumption of pork products and alcoholic beverages are considered "immoral" by Muslims and Orthodox Jews- should we therefore ban both pork chops and whiskey? Social movements favouring the emancipation of slaves and the franchise for women(in both the United States and Great Britain) were considered "abominations" in the eyes of God and a violation of the natural order, as was opposition to the Vietnam War.

As for arguments that religious objections trump all other considerations, it is worth noting that the Arab based boycott of Israel and companies that did business with it( arguably based on the Koran's unflattering depiction of Jews as a group) is considered a violation of US federal and state laws forbidding discrimination based on religious and racial grounds.

So what do YOU think?

Terry

Good

What I don't understand about religious people is why they feel the need to strictly refuse service to gay people. Why do they not to do the same to adulterers, people who've had premarital sex, etc.? Doesn't make sense.

Just don't go there, jeebus. Is it that difficult?

(Not all) People just don't care about the perspective of religious people.. but those same people who don't care want to scream discrimination.

Some just like to cry and complain about anything that has to do with religion (even if that something is harmless) and the public.

Now it's just getting annoying. :P.

So much this.

K, haha. *nods*

lol America is ore progressive in its tolerance of hate-mongering. Several state and local governments have repealed legislation so that business owners can discriminate based on sexual orientation, and presumably other factors as well. Guess the UK has some catching up to do if they want to be like our proud democracy.

lol

I never got it either. They're not supposed to hate anybody for their flaws either since, let's be honest, all of us have sinned at one point or another. Not to mention the fact that homosexuals have gone and been accepted into church before.

WoW

So in the UK shop owners don't have the right to refuse service?

Just refuse to make fruit cake joke

It happens

Did the government fine them?

I'm no religious person, but if it is a private owned company. I'd say it is thier right to sell to whomever they wish. Then again, real religious freedom only exist in America.

Hasn't this exact thread been posted before?..

I don't think that it wasn't just a matter of refusing the order, it was a matter of placing the order with an endorsement. But, this is the UK and not the United States, so I can't really say; it would seem like there will be problems if that government is going to force Christians to endorse things that are against their moral values. I they were refusing to sell simply based on religion, than the fine was appropriate, but if they're being forced to endorse a life style that they're against, than that's a whole different matter altogether. The fine is pretty small for a business. Requiring them to sell to a customer is ok, but requiring to endorse something that they find reprehensible based on the instructions of the Bible is not ok.

@dshipp17: The government is not forcing them to support gay marriage. They just want the shop to serve their customers regardless of their racial or sexual identity.

If they're forcing the company to sell the cake and include that message on the cake than they're effectively forcing them to endorse gay marriage. They can sell the couple the cake and other materials, but they should not have to be forced to include that message; if the couple wants that message on the cake than they can take it away somewhere and add it to the cake themselves.

@paracelsus-presume the cake has to do with the referendum for same sex marriage across the border, otherwise the timing seem very coincidental?

@cable_extreme: Is that so?

My feelings are, if you want to be a bigot....that is your choice. But be up front that you are a bigot and quit hiding behind Christ's name....because you obviously do not follow the teachings of the guy.

preach brother preach

Well evidently, not for bullsh!t reasons like the bakers tried to here.

Just one question for those who cite "religious reasons" for refusing trade from gay customers( both here and in the US)- do you similarly refuse orders from known adulterers, alcoholics( fornicators and winebibbers in Biblical parlance), divorced people, known or suspected murderers, paedophiles(all of which are condemned by Church teaching if not by Christ himself) No? ( business is business after all and any company with such a restrictive attitude would quickly go belly up). Then why make an exception on gays based on a cherry picked quotation from Leviticus?

As for the "religious "obejction to SSM - it is worth noting that as late as 1967 people similarly opposed(and some still do) the lifting of the ban on interracial marraige( needless to say between heterosexual partners) by the US Supreme Court in the celebrated court case "Loving v Virginia"(see Wikipedia entry) citing the "fact" that it was "against God's will" for races to mix!

Sounds that somebody is being conveniently fundamentalist(not unlike "jihadists")!

Terry

@laflux: I don't care what his reasons are it's his shop, he should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

@paracelsus: just point out like many you don't seem to have your head wrapped around the situation when you have such a horrible example and would only be relevant if someone wanted a pro murder/pedo cake, it's not like the shop refused to serve them because they where gay, why is it so hard to understand, this constant fact twisting is why so many hate identity politics as they look for the big bads when most people are decent.

it's not like the shop refused to serve them because they where gay

Can you explain the quote above @dextersinister. Why did they refuse to serve them then?

How can so many people support homophobia? Religion is so fck'd up.

That's dumb logic.

@laflux: That avatar dude :P

Its Joygirl inspired.

@laflux: I've seen her stash xP

Because they asked for something they didn't want to do, if a straight person asked for a pro-gay marriage cake that wouldn't make a difference.

Was anything I said wrong? no, the person I replied to got there facts wrong yet apparently you have an issue with what I typed.

You're acting like them refusing to make a cake because they don't agree with pro gay marriage is better than the alternative. Why would a straight person ask for that cake for their wedding? They most likely wouldn't. Basically they didn't bake the cake because they're gay... because they don't agree with gay marriage or gay people in general.

Why did the couple want that cake? Because they're gay... so pretty much they got turned down because they're gay.

The fact that you're going to even play this po-tay-to/po-tah-to trump card is BS. Can't say I expected more of you, you're trying to make what the bakery did seem not as bad. This is worse than that time you came into the atheist thread and then immediately went off topic and made some dumb comment about atheists.

@thenaughtytitan:

You're acting like them refusing to make a cake because they don't agree with pro gay marriage is better than the alternative

Well yes I do think that, many people think that disagreeing on someone over beliefs is a lot better than who they are

Why would a straight person ask for that cake for their wedding? They most likely wouldn't.

For a gay wedding maybe, the bride or groom does not always buy the cake but this was off point, they would offer a gay couple anything they would offer a straight, you where wrong.

Why did the couple want that cake? Because they're gay... so pretty much they got turned down because they're gay.

There's no wordplay on this one, you where wrong, there's a clear and massive difference on beliefs and who you are, I thought atheists dealt in the obvious but I found even that's not true. Another example on how I was most likely right on whatever comment I left in that thread.

First of all, you already misrepresented the teachings of the Bible by saying that the emancipation of slaves and women is considered an abomination in the eyes of God; it doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. I'm sure many businesses either refuse service or give know pedophiles grief when they go by their day to day lives. In all cases, businesses are in a don't ask don't tell situation, meaning no one knows anything about their customers' past actions or moral compass, as it should be, unless that person broadcasts/confesses his sins before checkout; would there be a mass complaint if someone walked up to the cash register, said my five year old child is barely conscious in a cage in my basement, because I just gave him corporal punishment, and got refused service in place of a call to the police? However, if this person said nothing, he'd just walk out of the store with his purchased items. The situations that you presented are apposed to your examples; in the example that you presented, no one is refusing to sell a cake to the gay couple, they're refusing to be possibly seen as endorsing it; I'm very sure if the company was asked to place the message "pedophiles are just misunderstood, relax the laws some", the shop would probably have refused service to that individual; as with this case, I'm sure that they'd sell the individual the cake, but may refused to go forward, if, in order to sell the person the cake, that message was required to be included on the cake. If it were a known fact that a person was a murderer, that person would probably be refused service every so often, or made to feel uncomfortable shopping somewhere, especially depending on how heinous the murder.

@lunacyde: si senior

@dshipp17: THANK YOU.. hate when people use those stretch comparisons.

k

Fuffufufufffufufufffufuffu.

Beata

And it would appear that the religious people don't care about the perspective of the gay people. Many of the gay people would just like to go somewhere and be treated like anyone else without people saying, "WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND HERE.

Keep it in the states